Archives for the month of: March, 2015

From a reader in Seattle:

 

 

Here’s what they’re saying in Seattle.

 

 

________ I have read and understand that:

 

 This refusal will be filed with the student’s permanent record.

 

 Students who do not participate will receive a “zero” score on the assessment and no score report for teachers or families to view.

 

 A zero will negatively impact the school’s overall results in assessments such as Smarter Balanced.

 

 Teachers will not receive results that could otherwise be used as a tool to measure the student’s academic growth in the core academic areas of reading, writing, math, and/or science.

 

 Families will not receive results that will enable them to chart the student’s growth over time.

 

 High school juniors without Smarter Balanced assessment results will not be eligible for the remedial testing waiver offered by state colleges.

 

 Students who do not participate will receive supervision but not instruction during assessment time.

 

 Students who do not receive a score for the high school state assessment in required subjects, or an approved alternative, will not be able to obtain a high school diploma.

 

We’re not taking the test. I’m phasing out of teaching now — I started in Title I schools, and am ending with charters, both physical and virtual — so I’ve reasonably little fear of reprisals against my teaching license. And keep in mind, my son attends a high-performing school (over 90% proficient), with only 5% or so FRPL. Save Seattle Schools (http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/), an excellent local blog, has offered response to each of these mendacious threats, and I believe them.

 

This enforced compliance is unconscionable for all parties involved.

At some point, the Wall Street money behind the charter movement will not be sufficient to cover up the escalating number of frauds and scams reported almost daily across the country. In this article in Salon, Jeff Bryant writes about some of the most recent financial abuses perpetrated by charter founders. Open his article to find links providing sources for all his statements.

 

Bryant writes:

 

What fun we had recently with North Carolina’s recently elected U.S. senator, Republican Thom Tillis, who insisted we didn’t need government regulations to compel restaurant employees to wash their hands in between using the toilet and preparing our food.

 

His solution to proper sanitation practices in restaurants – “the market will take care of that” – was roundly mocked by left-leaning commentators as an example of the way conservatives uphold the interests of businesses and moneymaking above all other concerns.

 

Fun, for sure, but it’s no laughing matter that the Tillis plan for public sanitation appears to increasingly be the philosophy for governing the nation’s schools.

 

Rather than directly address what ails struggling public schools, policy leaders increasingly claim that giving parents more choice about where they send their children to school – and letting that parent choice determine the funding of schools – will create a market mechanism that leaves the most competent schools remaining “in business” while incompetent schools eventually close.

 

Coupled with more “choice” are demands to increase the numbers of unregulated charter schools, especially those operated by private management firms that now have come to dominate roughly half the charter sector….

 

For instance, in Charlotte, at least three charter schools abruptly closed down this year alone, some after having been in operation for only a few months. The most recent shutdown was particularly noticeable.

 

That school, Entrepreneur High, focused on teaching students job skills, so they could be financially independent when they graduated. Turns out the school had its own financial problems with only $14 in the bank and $400,000 in debt. In fact, the school never even really had a financial plan at all.

 

In other news from the front of “school choice” in the Tarheel State, left-leaning group N.C. Policy Watch recently reported about a state auditor who checked the books of a Kinston charter school and found the school overstated attendance–thereby inflating its state funds by more than $300,000.

 

The school shorted its staff by more than $370,000 in payroll obligations, according to reports, while making “questionable payments of more than $11,000″ to the CEO and his wife. And the CEO’s daughter was being paid $40,000 to be the school’s academic officer even though she had zero experience in teaching or school administration.

 

When the reporter, Lindsay Wagner, tried to contact the school’s CEO to question him about the auditor’s findings, she discovered he had left his position and was working elsewhere in the state – running a different charter school.

 

Meanwhile, the state has rolled out another school choice venture: vouchers, called Opportunity Scholarships, that allow parents to pull their kids out of public schools and get taxpayer funding to enroll the kids in the schools of their choice. Wagner, again, wondered where the money was heading and found 90 percent of it goes to private religious institutions….

 

Also, Wagner reported, voucher funds come with “virtually no accountability measures attached … Private schools are also free to use any curriculum they see fit, employ untrained, unlicensed teachers and conduct criminal background checks only on the heads of schools. For the most part, they do not have to share their budgets or financial practices with the public, in spite of receiving public dollars.”

 

North Carolina is not unique in tolerating charter school corruption.

 

Bryant writes:

 

In Ohio, for instance, a recent investigation into charter schools by state auditors found evidence of fraud that made North Carolina’s pale in comparison. The privately operated schools get nearly $6,000 in taxpayer money for every student they enroll, but half the charter schools the auditor looked at had “significantly lower” attendance than what they claimed in state funding.

 

One charter school in Youngstown had no students at all, having sent the kids home for the day at 12:30 in the afternoon.

 

This form of charter school fraud is so widespread, according to an article in Education Week, many states now employ “‘mystery’ or ‘secret shopper’ services used in retail” that pose as inquiring parents to call charter schools to ensure they’re educating the students they say they are.

 

Enrollment inflation is not the only form of fraud charter schools practice. In Missouri, a federal judge recently fingered a nationwide chain of charter schools, Imagine, for “self-dealing” in a lease agreement that allowed it to fleece a local charter school of over a million dollars.

 

“The facts of the case mirror arrangements in Ohio and other states,” the reporter noted, “where Imagine schools pay exorbitant rent to an Imagine subsidiary, SchoolHouse Finance. The high lease payments leave little money for classroom instruction and help explain the poor academic records of Imagine schools in both states……”

 

In Washington, which was late to the game of charters and choice, the state’s first charter school is already under investigation for financial and academic issues.

 

Investigators in the District of Columbia, recently uncovered a charter school operator who “funneled $13 million of public money into a private company for personal gain.”

 

A recent report from the Center for Popular Democracy looked at charter school finances in Illinois and found “$13.1 million in fraud by charter school officials … Because of the lack of transparency and necessary oversight, total fraud is estimated at $27.7 million in 2014 alone.”

 

One example the CPD report cited was of a charter operator in Chicago who used charter school funds amounting to more than $250,000 to purchase personal items from luxury department stores, including $2,000 on hair care and cosmetic products and $5,800 for jewelry….

 

While charter school operations continue to waste public money on scandals and fraud – all in the name of “choice” – newly enacted school vouchers divert more public school dollars to private schools….

 

In Louisiana, over a third of students using voucher funds to attend private schools are enrolled schools “doing such a poor job of educating them that the schools have been barred from taking new voucher students.”

 

In parts of Wisconsin, “private schools accepting vouchers receive more money per student than public school districts do for students attending through open enrollment.”

 

Despite the obvious misdirection of taxpayer money, more states are eager to roll out new voucher plans or expand the ones they have. As the Economist recently reported, “After the Republicans’ success in state elections in November, several are pushing to increase the number and scope of school voucher schemes,” including Wisconsin, where probable presidential candidate Scott Walker has proposed to remove all limits on the number of schoolchildren who could attend private schools at taxpayer expense.

 

Of course, not all voucher-like schemes are called “vouchers.” According to a report from Politico, some states are considering voucher-like mechanisms called Education Savings Accounts that allow parents to pocket taxpayer money that would normally pay for public schools to be used for other education pursuits, including private school and home schooling. Two states – Florida and Arizona – already have them, but six more may soon follow….

 

Support for vouchers extends to Congress, as another Politico article reported, where Republican, and some Democratic, lawmakers are “proposing sweeping voucher bills and nudging school choice into conversations about the 2016 primaries.”

 

According to a report from Education Week, congressional Republicans leading the effort to rewrite the nation’s federal education policy, called No Child Left Behind, are “intent on drafting the most-conservative version of the federal K-12 law possible,” which would include a voucher-like scheme allowing federal money designated as Title I funds, the program for schools with low-income students, “to follow those students to the school of their choice, including private schools.”

 

In fact, working its way through the U.S. House of Representatives currently is a bill called the Student Success Act that would provide for this “Title I Portability.” In the U.S. Senate, according to Education Week, Title I Portability is also included in a draft bill to rewrite NCLB introduced by Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.

 

“Everyone should care and learn about Title I Portability,” warns public school advocate Jan Resseger on Public School Shakedown, a blog site operated by the Progressive magazine.

Resseger points to a statement by the National Coalition for Public Education stating, “This proposal would undermine Title I’s fundamental purpose of assisting public schools with high concentrations of poverty and high-need students.” Resseger also cites, from the Center on American Progress, a brief opposing Title I Portability. “According to CAP,” Resseger explains, Title I Portability would be “Robin Hood in Reverse … taking from the poor and giving to the rest,” ignoring the long-known fact that socioeconomic isolation has a devastating impact, as, on average, “school districts with highly concentrated family poverty would lose $85 per student while more affluent school districts would gain, on average, $290 per student.”

 

Despite the damage that Title I Portability could do to public schools serving our most high-needs students, charter school advocates appear to back the measure, according to a recent post at Education Week. “By and large, we feel that when the dollars follow children to the school that they select, you create a better marketplace for reform,” the president of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Nina Rees is quoted.

 

Nina Rees is a supporter of both charters and vouchers; she served as education advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney during the George W. Bush administration.

 

With today’s school choice crowd, children’s guaranteed access to high-quality public education appears to be no longer the goal – either by policy or practice.

 

Under the Tillis Rule, it’s assumed some schools will be allowed to remain lousy at least for some substantial period of time (how long is anyone’s guess), while “the money follows the child,” “people vote with their feet” and “the market works.”

 

Any negative consequences to those students and families unlucky or unfortunate enough to be stuck in the not-so-good schools – after all, it’s impossible for every family to get into the “best school” – seem to not matter one whit.

 

And that’s really sick.

 

 

Steven Rasmussen is a mathematics educator and co-founder of Key Curriculum Press. He studied the mathematics tests of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and concluded that the tests are so flawed that they should not be used.

He has written a report, analyzing sample questions, which can be found here, by opening a pdf file. 

This is his summary:

This spring, tests developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium will be administered to well over 10 million students in 17 states to determine their proficiency on the Common Core Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM). This in-depth analysis of sample mathematics test questions posted online by Smarter Balanced reveals that, question after question, the tests (1) violate the standards they are supposed to assess, (2) cannot be adequately answered by students with the technology they are required to use, (3) use confusing and hard-to-use interfaces, or (4) are to be graded in such a way that incorrect answers are identified as correct and correct answers as incorrect. No tests that are so unfair should be given to anyone. Certainly, with stakes so high for students and their teachers, these Smarter Balanced tests should not be administered. The boycotts of these tests by parents and some school districts are justified. In fact, responsible government bodies should withdraw the tests from use before they do damage.

In an article published in 2013, journalist Launce Rake comments on the departure from Nevada of two “reformers.” He takes the opportunity to explain why the word “reform” should never be used to describe events, individuals, or organizations.

 

He writes:

 

A GOOD EDITOR, YEARS AGO, told me to jettison the word “reform.” Calling a policy change “reform” is a way to dress it up and make it acceptable to the public, she explained.

 

If you want to award less money to people who sue after being horribly maimed by bad products or services, don’t call it “giving victims less money.” Call it “tort reform.”

 

Likewise, if you want to take apart the teachers unions and make it easier to fire teachers, don’t say “make it easier to fire teachers”. Call it “education reform.”

 

And they have. For a decade, education reform — that is, administrative and policy changes to public schools — has been a train barreling down the tracks, embraced by elected and appointed officials at all levels, across the political spectrum. Everybody loves reform!

 

That’s as true in Nevada as anywhere in the nation; schools in Nevada and the Clark County School District, the nation’s fifth largest, consistently rank among the worst-performing in the nation. While some wags also point out that they are also among the worst funded in the nation, political leaders, unable or unwilling to address the funding issue, have instead called for “reform.”

 

Isn’t it amazing that this writer gets it, but no one in the mainstream media does?

Denish Jones is a contributor to EmPower magazine. She holds a Ph.D. in Curriculum and Instruction from Indiana University. She has taught kindergarten, preschool, served as a campus based preschool director, and taught college for over 10 years. Currently she is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at Howard University.

 

In this article, Jones warns that so-called “reformers” have stolen the language of the civil rights movement to advance their goals of privatization and deprofessionalization. Their aims actually contradict the aims of the civil rights movement.

 

 

She writes:

 

1. Privatization is inherently unequal.

The corporate reform movement that is waging war against public education has one goal in mind: privatization. Free-market advocates do not believe in a system of public education and are on a mission to see every aspect of a public society privatized from our prisons to our schools. But with privatization comes the loss of public ownership. Public systems are open to inspection by the public. Records are made public and the process is transparent so that community members can understand what is happening and voice their concerns. Privatization removes the ability of the public to know what is happening with their tax dollars. Private companies can use proprietary laws to prevent them from disclosing documents and following laws pertaining to public records….

 

Without the transparency of how our tax dollars are spent how do we hold private corporations accountable? Some businesses do well but others fail to garner enough capital to stay afloat; that is the nature of capitalism. But when the business model of winners and losers is applied to public education, the losers tend to be children who struggle academically and families without the social capital needed to advocate for their children. The winners are CEO’s and stock holders who earn high salaries with public money but can use their private status to shield themselves from public accountability.

 

2. School choice is not about parents choosing good schools it’s about schools choosing good students.

 

School choice has been pushed by corporate reformers since the creation of charter schools and vouchers. Using the plight of underfunded poverty ridden urban schools reformers argued that low-income and minority families should be given a choice in where they send their child to school. Choice and competition would force low-performing schools to compete for students or be closed. Why should low-income and minority families have to settle for a failing neighborhood schools when parents with more money could choose better schools? This is how the argument for school choice is often framed as a benefit for certain groups. But the research paints a different picture….

The push for privatization distorts the picture of who really gets to choose under school choice schemes. Reformers would have us believe that parents are doing the choosing but in reality it is the charter schools, many which are for-profit corporations, who get to choose.

 

3. Underprepared teachers for other people’s children.

 

Privatization of public education cannot be fully implemented unless the system for educating teachers is also privatized. Typically teachers were prepared through colleges and universities were they took a variety of courses and completed a semester long student teaching internship before they could apply for a teaching license through their state. Today fast-track teacher preparation programs like Teach for America (TFA) are turning teacher preparation into a business. Recent college graduates are recruited to spend a few years teaching in inner-city schools with high needs students. Armed with five weeks of training and a desire to give back, these recruits are placed in classrooms and expected to outperform educators with teaching degrees and years of experience. TFA is touted as noble program that will change the teaching profession by removing the union thugs who only care about themselves and replacing them with young idealistic people who have the commitment to do what needs to be done and will not use poverty as an excuse.

 

Armed with language of from the Civil Rights movement, TFA claims to be champion of low-income and minority children. Statements like this, “Nearly 50 years after landmark civil rights marches throughout the region, deep, entrenched poverty still persists along racial lines” and “From Birmingham to Selma, corps members are helping to prove that all kids can achieve at high levels, even those living in poverty” can be found on their website and are clear examples of how TFA has co-opted the language of the Civil Rights movement. But hidden behind these nice quotes is the assumption that other people’s children deserve underprepared “saviors” as their teacher…..What the richest and most educated parent wants for their own child should be what we aspire to give all children.

 

Denisha Jones concludes:

 

There is much work to done as we continue to march towards Dr. King’s dream. Corporate education reform is not an ally in our fight for educational justice. We must not be fooled by those who seek to use the legacy of our struggle to turn a profit at the expense of our children’s education. A strong democratic republic needs high quality public schools that offer a free and appropriate public education to all.

 

 

Yesterday I posted a reading list for students who were not taking the Common core tests; it was created by New York State Allies for Public Education, an alliance of fifty organizations of parents and teachers. The list is predominantly fiction. As a parent and grandparent and a reader, I love both fiction and non-fiction and don’t think one or the other is “better.” What matters most is the quality of the writing, not the genre.

 

I received the following comment from Vicki Cobb, a prolific writer of science books for children:

 

I’m glad you mentioned that there was very little nonfiction on the list. To rectify that, my organization has been posting http://www.nonfictionminute.com Check it out. It’s a daily posting of about 400 words written by top children’s nonfiction authors, accompanied by an audio file of the author reading his/her essay to make the content accessible to less fluent readers. Most people do not know the names of the best children’s nonfiction authors partly because we’re cataloged and shelved by the topics we write about instead of our names–as fiction authors are cataloged and shelved. We’re hoping that if kids read a Nonfiction Minute, they just might want to read a book by the author. Nonfiction Minutes are not excerpts from our books. They are stand-alone essays to be read for interest and pleasure. They are edited by Jean Reynolds, one of the best in the business, who founded Millbrook Press and Roaring Brook Press and came out of retirement to do this. We are doing this on a totally voluntary basis, to inform, inspire, and entertain our readers. The web is great when you know what you don’t know. It’s not so good when you don’t know what you don’t know. So we are introducing children to our own individual passions. High interest trumps reading levels.

I say read with care, because if you are fed up with Rahm Emanuel’s attacks on public education and unions, you may need to have a barf bag nearby. If you live in New York, and you are aware of Governor Cuomo’s pandering to Wall Street, you will have the same reaction. As you read this encomium to the great Rahm, you may wonder how the term “progressive Democrat” became a definition for someone who attacks teachers, unions, and public education, and exactly how they differ from conservative Republican governors like Scott Walker, John Kasich, and Mike Pence. But bear in mind that this is the same editorial board that thought Michelle Rhee was a great success as chancellor of the D.C. schools and cheered her every move.

Overnight, the blog reached 18 million page views. The last time it hit the million mark was January 28, when it hit 17 million. I had no idea when I started blogging on April 26, 2012, that this would happen.

 

My goal since the blog started was to let others know that what was happening in their state and district was not an isolated phenomenon. I wanted you to know that if you don’t like the status quo in education today, you are not alone. If you don’t like the attacks on teachers, you are not alone. If you are alarmed by the way testing has become the main focus of schooling, you are not alone.

 

The movement to turn public education over to private management and entrepreneurs is national, not local. The movement to take away due process and collective bargaining rights for teachers is national, not local. The indifference to segregation and poverty is national, not local. I wanted to help build a movement against privatization and high-stakes testing by providing the information people need.

Over time, I realized I could magnify the audience for brilliant bloggers like Anthony Cody, Peter Greene, Mercedes Schneider, Paul Thomas, Paul Horton, Bruce Baker, and many others. When I saw how many insightful comments were posted by teachers, parents, principals, superintendents, and concerned citizens, I realized I could give them a platform to be heard. When new research appears that is relevant to our issues, I could share it. Most of what I post is written by others, not by me. I set the rules, I decide what to post, but it is your blog too.

 

I have posted more than 10,000 times; I have read more than 250,000 comments. I turned many of your comments into posts because I thought they were smart, provocative, informative. I love the conversation among the readers. Many are regulars. Others jump in when they feel the urge. All are welcome (so long as they don’t use certain four-letter words or spout conspiracy theories or insult me).

 

I have repeatedly tried not to overwhelm you with too many posts in a single day, but I usually fail. When I see something I really like or really don’t like, I feel a need to share it. So, despite my best intentions, you get too many emails from me. No one has to read them. No one has to sign on. So, I will go on doing what I love doing–being a disseminator of my thoughts, your thoughts, and the thoughts of others, in the service of “a better education for all.”

 

There is a movement against the status quo of privatization and high-states testing. It is growing by the day. It includes students, parents, educators, and others. It won’t succeed in a matter of months. But it will succeed. I don’t know if it will take a year, five years, or ten years. It will succeed. Everything the “reformers” have imposed has failed. Merit pay has failed. Charters are no better and are very often much worse than public schools, especially when they are run by non-educators or by people seeking to make a profit. Vouchers have failed. The usual punitive accountability schemes–like grading schools A-F or stack-ranking teachers–are a farce. The parent trigger has failed. The effort to measure teacher quality by test scores has failed. Despite all the money of the billionaires and the Wall Street hedge fund managers, despite their control of the U.S. Department of Education, their plan to privatize public education is a failure. They can make it happen here and there, but they can’t produce any real improvement that benefits all children. They can’t produce equality of educational opportunity. They produce more testing, but they can’t produce better education. They can cherry pick students and show off their Potemkin Village schools, but they dare not take responsibility for an entire district because they don’t know what to do with the children who won’t conform, the children with disabilities, and the children who can’t speak English.

 

Might there be common ground? Yes, I think so. But common ground must begin by ending the boasting, ending the false claims. Education in a large and diverse society is hard, not easy. There is no secret sauce. Common ground requires that charter promoters stop bragging that they are better than public schools. Teach for America must stop bragging that their idealistic and dedicated young recruits are better teachers than experienced teachers. And the funders of these institutions must stop the attacks on public education and on the teaching profession. Common ground begins when everyone recognizes that complex problems require collaboration and mutual respect. Common ground also requires that charter promoters stop using their students as political shock troops at school board meetings, City Council hearings, and state legislative meetings.

 

Every high-performing nation has a strong public school system with strong community support and equitable funding. They do not rely on competitive markets to provide education; competitive markets exacerbate segregation and inequality. A better education for all means a better education for all. It means equality of educational opportunity. It means well-educated, well-prepared teachers. It means a respected teaching profession. It means parent and community support for the mission of the schools.

 

These are my principles. And these are the principles of this blog. Thank you for reading. Thank you for commenting. Thank you for sending me articles and links. I rely on you and I thank you.

 

 

 

This is an excellent reading list of books for children who are not taking the state tests. The books are mostly for students in grades 3-8. It was assembled by the parents and teachers who are members of New York State Allies for Public Education. The list probably would not pass muster with the Common Core Commissariat because most of the books are fiction. But they are all enjoyable books, the kind that inspire children to read on their own, for pleasure. An old-fashioned idea, but a good one.

Jack Hassard, professor emeritus of science education at Georgia State University, writes here about the passage of a bill in the State Senate that would allow the state to takeover struggling public schools and turn them over to a statewide district as charter schools. This is an attempt to replicate Louisiana’s Recovery School District and Tennessee’s Achievement School District. Never mind that the Louisiana Recovery School District is one of the lowest-performing districts in the state or that the Tennessee ASD has not achieved any of its goals. The important thing is to hand these low-performing schools over to a private operator and give the appearance of “doing something.”

 

Wouldn’t it make more sense to reduce class sizes in these schools? Make sure these schools have adequate resources? Send in expert teachers to help the staff? Establish high-quaity preschool programs in each school district? Put a school nurse in every one of those schools? Make sure they have a library, after-school programs, and a school psychologist? What do you want to bet that every one of these “struggling schools” has high rates of poverty? The state should act responsibly to help the children now, not to fob them off to an entrepreneur.